About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 8, Chiu 8, Farrell 7, San Francisco 5, Mr. Malmud 4, The City 3, Kim 3, John Malmud 2, Lindsey 1, Eric Burks 1, Preemption 1, Nicole 1, Yee 1, San Franciscans 1, City Hall 1, City 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    April 22, 2013
    12:30 - 1:00pm PDT  

12:30pm
this time. and i just really feel like tic owners knew what they were getting into when they purchased properties. and if they felt like they needed to have real estate financing down the line, that maybe they should have bought more modest investments. and that's just the way i feel. i'm sorry if i'm unsympathetic. i'm also worried about how this ordinance could be subject to abuse by developers. and i think that the amendments that i heard today from supervisors chiu and kim were really encouraging, the part that capped the maximum of four-unit buildings to be eligible. and i'm also afraid because i know that, you know, there can be straw man tactics and i was shocked to hear from some of the other commentators about different types of tactics that are used, you know, with the
12:31pm
declarations and all that. just very shocking. yeah, i'm also concerned just about the general depletion of rent control units in the city and the cultural changes that that would cause. my one last concern was that when i read the ordinance, i saw that there was a clause that if any preemption would occur, that that would -- that the rest of the ordinance would stand despite that preemption. and i feel like that's very dangerous because the part of the ordinance that is most subject to abuse is the -- am i not right in that? well, anyway, the preemption of the lifetime leases is a real risk and i just want to [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening, supervisors. eric burks representing the
12:32pm
green party and grassroots organization in our city. i applaud supervisors chiu and yee and supervisor kim for stepping forward with important amendments that make this thing so that it's not an absolute disaster. but i have to say that we need to get back to the days of when we created rent control in the first place where we weren't just going to put a bandaid on an artery bleed, but we were going to completely revolutionize how we handle housing in the city. the reality is, especially these days, i don't know how many of you follow the way finance capitalism has mushroomed and how it works, but this is a global -- this is happening because of a global capitalist phenomenon that's happening in capitalism right now where you have more and more basically expansion of what can only be called monopoly money on a global
12:33pm
level and on wall street that just -- the bigger it gets, the more it has to find someplace to put this essentially counterfeit financing into something new. that means tear things down and build them higher. 20 years later tear them down again, build them up again and it's devastating the city. it's going to tear the city apart. this process is never going to end until we step up to get rid of the ellis act, to get rid of costa hawk in, to get rent control in san francisco. for small businesses we get rent control on those and vacancy rent control for small business commercial property. we need to get serious about this or 10 years from now we're just going to have exactly the same conversation, kind of like when an alcoholic says to their partner, oh, honey, don't worry, this is the last time. we hear the same thing about these condo conversions. >> thank you. is there any additional public
12:34pm
comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, the matter is in the hands of the committee. i know that president chiu and supervisor yee have introduced an amendment that we have before us. and then supervisor kim has introduced an additional amendment. and i have a question to the city attorney, mr. malmud, in terms of whether these amendments are approved as to form by the city attorney. >> john malmud from the city attorney's office. the amendment that supervisor kim passed around earlier has not yet been approved by the city attorney's office as to form. >> and how about the amendments by supervisors chiu and yee have been? >> yes. the clerk has the signed
12:35pm
version before her. >> okay. and in terms of -- president chiu, may i ask a question of supervisor kim? actually, to mr. malmud. >> i can actually address because we actually just chatted just now. what i'm going to do is i'm going to make a motion to what we would like to see go in as the amendment. and then mr. malmud has agreed to work on it to ensure that we have it ready for the public by the time the agenda is noticed on thursday at noon. so, we're going to spend the next day and a half working on that language. so, that is the motion that i will be making. >> and i think, just for the sake of the public, the idea that's been proposed is that there would be an amendment to address the issue of the sale or contract for the sale of the unit in advance of the subdivision in order to ensure
12:36pm
that a tenant protections from the lifetime lease provision. >> mr. malmud, do you believe that this amendment can be prepared in a way that you can approve it as to form? you don't have to answer that definitively. i know you need to work on that with supervisor kim. >> thanks. i do want to point out one other thing, is that the amendments that are before you do create a certain preconditions to resumption of the lottery. and as a result of those preconditions, i believe that it should go back to the planning department for purposes of environmental review so they can give clearance to the new program. i don't know if that's something that they could respond back in advance of -- there was some suggestion the hearing might be next week. i don't know their schedule. >> okay. is supervisor farrell aware of
12:37pm
this or he'll be hearing this for the first time? [multiple voices] >> supervisor chiu's office has been made aware of this. >> about having to re-refer this -- to refer this to the planning commission for new environmental clearance? >> planning department. >> planning department. >> i'm sorry, you're talking about the legislation that i'm proposing, that that would have to go back to planning? first, this is not actually a hearing event. >> the legislation today, there is a provision in it that indicates the planning department has given environmental clearance for the legislation. that is already in hand with the clerk's office. with the amendments that are proposed, the planning department has not seen those in terms of giving environmental clearance yet. >> so, the resumption of the lottery intent here would implicate ceqa, is that what you're saying? >> it's not the resumption of the lottery. it's the condition that if the certain amount of new
12:38pm
affordable housing is created under the proposition c guidelines, that the lottery could start sooner than the 10 year provision. >> and -- >> that's not what the legislation says. we're saying that the minimum is 10 years, the maximum is the formula of the number of units created divided by 200. but what happens with the production of housing, that could bring the maximum number closer, if not, to be 10 years. so, we're not saying that it would necessarily go below that. >> that's correct. maybe i misspoke. but it's to address the scenario in which you're counting newly created units that the city creates under proposition c. ~ as being tied to the resumption of the lottery. >> there's a formula that -- i think it's 3,000 new units or something ~ in addition to an offset for all the units that
12:39pm
have been converted through the interim, the six-year program. ~ >> so, if i may, what would be the process for the consideration of planning of this provision? have you spoken to planning about this topic? >> it would go to a hearing review officer. [multiple voices] >> [speaker not understood] has been forwarded to the planning department. >> i believe it's received, if i'm not mistaken, with a categorical exemption before. okay. so, it may be another cat ex. >> i guess in terms of the timing that we are potentially looking at here is if we adopt the amendments today, and if we continue it today, it would be heard again in land use next monday if it were to be put out of committee that day because we do not meet the first week in may, it would come back -- excuse me, on the 30th, it would come to the full board on may 6th. so, we do have several weeks. so, the question is if we continue it to next monday and
12:40pm
if the new environmental clearance is not obtained by then, can we put it out of committee that day? >> in, in the past, based on advice from our office, there is not environmental clearance for the matter, the committee -- what we've advised is that the committee cannot make a recommendation of approval to the full board, but they could procedurally pass it on, we believe, if that does not -- by passing it on does not constitute an approval. however, that matter is currently under litigation today. >> okay. so, if we make the amendments today, continue it one week, then it's possible that we would have determination by the planning department next monday. if not, we could continue it again, or potentially put it out without recommendation. >> correct. >> okay, thank you for that clarification. president chiu. >> as i said at the ceqa hearing before, this is why
12:41pm
ceqa is my favorite four-letter word. [laughter] >> people have unending surprises. >> so, let me first start by again thanking the tenants who are here and their leadership for all of their work and advocacy, particularly on the ideas that were provided to my office and to supervisor yee that are embodied in the amendment that i have of the whole. and i also want to say i very much understand and empathize with the frustrations and the heart rending stories we heard today from some of our tenants which is why i have opposed the original legislation that has been in front of us today. but i want to address some of the comments that have been made. i hear from some a desire to simply vote down the proposal in froth of us. and i have been prepared to do that, but i think the challenges our tenant leadership understand if we simply vote down the proposal, we will continue the existing system of 200 conversions happening every year, 2000 conversions over the next decade, as well as additionally hundreds if not thousands of new tics that will still be purchased to continue the
12:42pm
speculation that we have had issues with in recent years. and the amendments that we have in front of us that i'm proposing would replace both the current system as well as the current proposal that farrell-wiener proposal in froth of us proposing a decade long moratorium for a condo purchase today to be converted. i also want to address a comment today during public comment. what happens during a legal challenge is that no one would be able to convert their tic to a condo until the issue is resolved by the courts. so, it would simply put a halt to the system on expedited conversion until that happens. let me also say i don't think either side believes that any proposal, my guess is, would give everyone what everyone wants. we have heard some miss givings today by tenants. i can assure you that the other side of this issue i believe has many more misgivings. but i would suggest we not allow the [speaker not understood] to become [speaker not understood] particularly on a topic we have debated for
12:43pm
many, many years. i will say with supervisor farrell here i was a little surprise today hear him say he was opposed to allowing the amendment for the original legislatev asian. i want to explain to the public if we do that, the version he proposed will no longer be before us for consideration. at this point we could be discussing a solution well embodied by the amendments we have that i think protects renters, addresses the situation, the plight facing current tic owners. ~ but says to future tic owners and real estate speculators that they will not see any conversion windfalls for at least the next decade. to me, i think that is a solution that makes sense. and with that, colleagues, i would like to make a motion that we move my amendments as amendment of the whole to replace supervisor farrell's version, and that obviously we need that to sit for the next week for additional public scrutiny and deliberation for us to consider next week. >> i will second the motion.
12:44pm
>> okay. supervisor kim? >> i am also going to make a motion. so, a little bit different from what i had initially proposed, i will work with the city attorney on language that would require recording prior to contract option to sell or transfer any tenant occupied unit or any interest in that tenant occupied unit prior to the contract. or prior to the contract. so, we'll work on that language over the next day and a half, and i will make sure that our office also sends that language out to members of the community that have been working on [speaker not understood]. >> can you restate that, the amendment again as revised? >> yes. so, it's to require recording prior to the contract or option to sell, or transfer any tenant or occupied unit or transfer
12:45pm
interest in that tenant occupied unit. what i had proposed was we would prohibit any contract or option to transfers until the recording of the map has happened. mr. malmud, would you like to add? >> john malmud from the city attorney's office. i think the intent is to create a condition that would be placed on the tentative parcel map approval or the tentative [speaker not understood] map approval that would be imposed upon the property owner that if they are obligated in a sense to honor the lifetime lease provisions if they are -- and if they are to enter into a contract to sell the unit in advance of the subdivision map being approved, that that requirement would be imposed on
12:46pm
the new owner. so, it's finding some language to create that kind of protection which i think was the intent behind the language, but it's not -- there wouldn't be a outright prohibition on the sale. >> so, to follow-up on my question from earlier, is that something that you think may be approvable as to form? i understand that you have not written it yet, and you probably want to do research. but i think before voting on the amendment, if the amendment were absolutely you believe not approvable as to form, we should know that. if you think there is a reasonable chance that it will be approvable as to form, i'd like to know that. >> i believe that if it's conditioned on a sale rather than some limitation to prohibit a sale, that that would be something we could approve as to form. >> okay, thank you. that's very helpful. >> and i'm happy to second that amendment. i do know this has been a difficult issue and i want to thank mr. malmud for the time he's already spent on this
12:47pm
legislation as well as [speaker not understood] the specific idea. i'm happy to support supervisor kim's amendment. >> supervisor farrell, did you want to -- okay. so, i have a few comments. so, first, i want to really thank all of my colleagues who have spent an inordinate amount of time on this legislation and potentially getting it to a place where it may be passed by the board of supervisors. i think coming into this legislation and this very lengthy and challenging debate is, you know, i came in, and i know a lot of people came in with recognition that we need to take into account the needs of all of our residents including renters, including tic owners.
12:48pm
and i really want to -- in fact, we've had a number of hearings on this already. i want to thank the advocates on both sides who at least acknowledge the challenges that the other side faced. and there were folks on -- who were opposing the legislation vociferously, but who at least acknowledged the challenges that not all, but quite a few tic owners are facing. and i want to thank the tic owners and advocates who at least acknowledged the crisis in housing affordability in our city that affects many people, including many tenants. this is about housing stability for everyone and there were advocates on both sides who i think really understood that big picture. whichever side of the debate they happen to fall on. in my district, district 8, ~ we have many, many renters who
12:49pm
are struggling mightily. we also have the largest number of tic owners. i know that throughout this process there have been some who have caricatured tic owners. today we didn't hear that rhetoric like we have in past hearings and i think that is appropriate. tic owners, the ones who i have met in my district and elsewhere, are also san franciscans. these are our neighbors. and by and large, these are former renters, often long-term san francisco renters -- not martians who dropped in from another planet -- who scraped together a down payment and are in the tic. one of the hallmarks of this board of supervisors over the last few years is we, along with the mayor, have been able to address and move forward proposals on issues that have vexed the city for a long time.
12:50pm
if you look at our last ballot, prop c, the affordable housing trust fund, that was many, many, many years of work and false starts and we were finally able to get it onto the ballot and have it pass overwhelmingly. prop e, business tax reform, one of those eternal debates at city hall about how do we actually move forward forming our business tax. we were able to put that 09ctionv ballot and it passed overwhelmingly. the debate on tics has been going on for a long time and it's one of those eternal debates at city hall. and i am pleased that we potentially have a resolution that will balance the needs of our many citizens this this -- or many residents, i should say, of this city, whether renters or tic owners, being able to find that common ground.
12:51pm
~ in this i will note to those who have been critical of the legislation that supervisor farrell and i introduced, i'll be honest, i didn't see very much dialogue about how to move forward to resolution before the legislation was actually pending. sides were extremely polarized and there was no -- i don't think that there was any meaningful discussion of how do we come up with some sort of legislation that everyone can live with and move forward. we now potentially have that. and sometimes even though ideally you want to work things out and come forward and introduce legislation that everyone or a lot of people can support. sometimes the debate doesn't really begin in a meaningful way until you actually have something pending on the table. and that's what we have, and i want to thank my colleagues for working so hard to come up with
12:52pm
something that may end up being a resolution. so, i look forward to the continued dialogue for the next few weeks. i will be supporting these amendments today, and i know that we'll have continued discussions. we did just receive these today. i have had a chance to look at them. from what i've seen, there are some very positive aspects to them and i will be supporting these amendments. so, supervisor kim? >> thank you. i also just want to make some final comments, which i saved from the beginning because i knew many of the members of the public wanted to speak. and, so, i am really happy to see that a resolution has moved forward and, you know, i think that, you know, i want to acknowledge some of the concerns that people have about having this bypass move forward in any form. but i really do think that
12:53pm
changing, a, reforming the lottery process in the future. reducing the eligibility to buildings to four units or less and also increasing the owner occupancy requirement is really actually a very good reform for the lottery process that currently exists. and i also think the suspension of the minimum of 10 years is also incredibly important because we do have many folk that are just in the pipeline already. so, feasibly it would be able to convert over at least the next 10 years if not longer. but we're able to address that -- you know, whether we agree that's the tic owner exist or not, that they should have thought in that fashion or not is right or wrong, they do exist in our system and they are planning to go through the lottery process at some point. but we're able to protect future speculation with this reform. i think that's really important so that any realtors or folks that want to go out and buy big building -- not big, but, you
12:54pm
know, two to three, to six-unit condos to convert are on warning. that is not going to be an option for ownership in 10 years at a minimum. i think that is really important to tenants today given so many step ant are facing. because the city is doing so well which is great, that's also a positive thing when the economy recovers. unfortunately one of the down sides of that our city becomes more expensive and that rent goes up. ~ and i think all of us have heard it from our tenants in our district. and i want to be really careful in saying that i think when people have attacked tic as an option, that we're not attacking the people who want to own homes in the city. we're just attacking the solution to home -- that solution to homeownership, that we would prefer that people who want to become homeowners, they didn't have to go to the rent controlled housing stock to become homeowners. we want to find another
12:55pm
pathway. one of that of course is more housing production, but also housing production that is affordable to residents in the city. and i am guilty of that, as many of our colleagues are of supporting, you know, luxury developments in the city that doesn't address that concern. but i think that we have to figure out really a more realistic solution in terms of what homeownership means that's affordable to our middle class and middle upper class residents here in san francisco so that when the lottery does resume in 10 years or so, we really have an alternative for homeownership here in san francisco. and, so, hopefully that will give us some time to really be thoughtful about that. how do we get our developers to build, you know, housing? it shouldn't be on the city to build housing. we can build income housing. i think it's important we subsidize that. we have to figure out what we
12:56pm
can do to developmental cost ownership here in san francisco. i'm very appreciative of this and i want to appreciate the advocates that have worked on this over the last three months. i know they have sat in supervisor yee's office and president chiu's office and also my office. so, a lot of peep to talk to that can't talk to each other. so, i know that the advocates kind of work triple time to make sure we get this done today. and i am also very appreciative of supervisor farrell and wiener wanting to work this out. i think, you know, their intent was really to address current tic owners and i think that these amendments will allow us to do that. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor farrell. >> change of captioners
12:57pm
12:58pm
12:59pm
i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we